Torts - Cases, Principles, and Institutions Fifth Edition, 2016a

Witt & Tani, TCPI 8. Duty Problem
presumably Brown, told him alcoholic beverages were available if he wanted them. Mike
Bossley, another uninvited guest, declared he was charged $ 5 to enter the party. Brown
eventually collected between $ 50 and $ 60 in entrance fees, and this money was used to buy
additional alcohol sometime during the party. The record is unclear whether any attendees brought
their own alcoholic beverages or whether Manosa provided the only alcohol consumed on the
premises.
Sometime before midnight, decedent Andrew Ennabe arrived at the party; he was
Manosa’s friend and an invited guest. Thomas Garcia and his friends arrived about 30 minutes
later and were charged admission. Ennabe and Garcia, both under 21 years of age, were visibly
intoxicated on arrival. Garcia in particular exhibited slurred speech and impaired faculties. By
his own reckoning, he had consumed at least four shots of whiskey before arriving. Although
Garcia later denied drinking anything at Manosa’s party, other guests reported seeing him
drinking there.
Once inside the gate, Garcia became rowdy, aggressive, and obnoxious. He made obscene
and vaguely threatening comments to female guests, and either he or a friend dropped his pants.
While Manosa claimed she was neither aware of Garcia’s presence nor that he was causing
problems with other guests, Garcia was eventually asked to leave for his inappropriate behavior.
Ennabe and some other guests escorted Garcia and his friends off the premises and ultimately to
their car. One of Garcia’s friends spit on Ennabe, prompting Ennabe to chase him into the street.
Garcia, who by this time was driving away, ran over Ennabe, severely injuring him. Ennabe later
died from his injuries.
Plaintiffs Faiez and Christina Ennabe, on behalf of themselves and the estate of their son,
filed a wrongful death action against defendant Manosa and her parents. . . . Defendants moved
for summary judgment or adjudication, claiming plaintiffs could not show defendants were liable
under section 25602.1, which permits liability for certain persons who serve alcohol to obviously
intoxicated minors, and that they were entitled to civil immunity. . . . The trial court granted
defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all causes of action . . . . The Court of Appeal
affirmed.
. . .
We granted plaintiffs’ petition for review.
For the better part of the 20th century, California case law held that a person who
furnished alcoholic beverages to another person was not liable for any damages resulting from the
latter’s intoxication. . . . The Legislature . . . declin[ed] to enact a contrary statutory scheme that
would permit civil liability . . . although it enacted legislation making the selling or furnishing of
an alcoholic beverage to an obviously intoxicated person a misdemeanor in 1953. . . . This court
first departed from the general common law rule of nonliability in 1971 when, noting the trend in
a majority of other states, we ruled that a vendor could be liable for selling alcoholic beverages to
an obviously intoxicated person who thereafter inflicted injury on third persons.
Five years later . . . , this court broadened the scope of potential liability.
Finally, in 1978, this court extended [liability] to noncommercial social hosts, reasoning
that a private person who serves alcohol in a noncommercial setting to an obviously intoxicated
428